NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[btrage]

Let me be very clear on something. I don’t want each state to be its own country, but I do want the United States restored to what the founding fathers gave so much to create. That is a unified republic with a strong state system as outlined in the Constitution.

The only reason that the federal government was limited during the drafting of the Constitution, was so the southern, slave-owning states would buy into it. Originally "state's rights" meant, "I want to be able to buy and sell another human being".

I have no problem with limiting the role of the federal government when it makes sense, but this clairon call of wanting to return to what the founders created is a bit overplayed on all levels of politics. The Constiution was drafted as it was out of necessity, not because all those involved saw it as the ideal.

In terms of specifics, I agree that the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution should be repealed. Regarding the 16th, this should only be done in conjunction with a complete re-write of the U.S. tax code.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Moving out of the country, while an option, is not something I am going to do. Instead I have started working with some of the state reps in my area and an international (US and Canada) group to slowly move away from increased regulation to increased freedoms as set forth in the Constitution.

You are 100% correct that the articles of confederation did not work all that great. That is why they were replaced with the Constitution which limited federal powers, established a system of checks and balances and maintained States rights and personal freedoms. However, there have been a handful of amendments that were put into place, two in1913, that need to be repealed as they changed the intention of the document.

As for the moving from one state to the next, you're correct, it might not be 'convenient' but a family would need to ask themselves if it is worth it. It is like eating at McDonalds, yes the food there is extremely unhealthy and you are putting chemicals into the bodies of your children that you would not want in your pets, but it is more convenient than going to the local farmers market and getting a free range chicken or a few ponds of grass fed beef. We as a society have gotten so wrapped up in the idea of 'oh, if it is hard it is not worth it,' which in my eyes, tragic. We live in a microwave society and sacrifice quality at the risk of inconvenience.

Roger Bannister did need to work harder, mentally and physically, to do what had never been done before. But through unimaginable hard work, he did what scientists and doctors said was impossible and people had spent over a thousand years trying to achieve. On a cold windy morning on May 6, 1954 he did the inconvenient thing and ran a mile in less than 4 minutes. He could have stayed at home as it would have been 'too hard' to get out there. The weather conditions were not right, the track was wet, but he did it because he wanted it. And now, here we are, more than 50 years later, talking about some British runner.

History is full of names and faces of people who did inconvenient things to get unimaginable results. Abraham Clark who signed the Declaration of Independence had to sons captured and held in a prison ship until Clark pulled his signature. But he never did. He was willing to give everything he owned and even his own life to get his sons back, but he could not give his honor away. He would not even talk about the brutal torture of his sons in fear that it would discourage others of signing the Constitution. Later we find out that this was more common than not. Several of the founding fathers had similar situations happen.

Let me be very clear on something. I don't want each state to be its own country, but I do want the United States restored to what the founding fathers gave so much to create. That is a unified republic with a strong state system as outlined in the Constitution.

Nevermind, it's just wasting time agruing with a fanatic.

 

[Hink]

Moving out of the country, while an option, is not something I am going to do. Instead I have started working with some of the state reps in my area and an international (US and Canada) group to slowly move away from increased regulation to increased freedoms as set forth in the Constitution.

You are 100% correct that the articles of confederation did not work all that great. That is why they were replaced with the Constitution which limited federal powers, established a system of checks and balances and maintained States rights and personal freedoms. However, there have been a handful of amendments that were put into place, two in1913, that need to be repealed as they changed the intention of the document.

As for the moving from one state to the next, you're correct, it might not be 'convenient' but a family would need to ask themselves if it is worth it. It is like eating at McDonalds, yes the food there is extremely unhealthy and you are putting chemicals into the bodies of your children that you would not want in your pets, but it is more convenient than going to the local farmers market and getting a free range chicken or a few ponds of grass fed beef. We as a society have gotten so wrapped up in the idea of 'oh, if it is hard it is not worth it,' which in my eyes, tragic. We live in a microwave society and sacrifice quality at the risk of inconvenience.

Roger Bannister did need to work harder, mentally and physically, to do what had never been done before. But through unimaginable hard work, he did what scientists and doctors said was impossible and people had spent over a thousand years trying to achieve. On a cold windy morning on May 6, 1954 he did the inconvenient thing and ran a mile in less than 4 minutes. He could have stayed at home as it would have been 'too hard' to get out there. The weather conditions were not right, the track was wet, but he did it because he wanted it. And now, here we are, more than 50 years later, talking about some British runner.

History is full of names and faces of people who did inconvenient things to get unimaginable results. Abraham Clark who signed the Declaration of Independence had to sons captured and held in a prison ship until Clark pulled his signature. But he never did. He was willing to give everything he owned and even his own life to get his sons back, but he could not give his honor away. He would not even talk about the brutal torture of his sons in fear that it would discourage others of signing the Constitution. Later we find out that this was more common than not. Several of the founding fathers had similar situations happen.

Let me be very clear on something. I don't want each state to be its own country, but I do want the United States restored to what the founding fathers gave so much to create. That is a unified republic with a strong state system as outlined in the Constitution.

My problem with your logic is that you seem to think everyone is able to achieve such amazing heights. Unfortunately that isn't the case. Sir Bannister was but one man. We are talking about millions of people. Also, I hate the term "founding fathers". For a lot of reason, but mainly because they are used to create this expectation of correctness.

1. No one truly knows what Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Jay, Franklin, etc. really wanted to create. We can infer from letters and the documents they created, but we don't know. So we really should try not to say that this is what the founding fathers wanted.
2. The term founding fathers wasn't even around until after the turn of the 20th century. It isn't something that is clearly defined, and not one of the gentlemen I listed thought he was a founding father.

The Constitution is a document. Is an exceptional one. But in the end it is a document. It has evolved as our country, the world, and life around it, has evolved. You may not like how it has changed, but it has and that is a good thing. Just like the Bible, if you took everything you read at face value, and followed every word of it, you would probably be arrested today, and for good cause. Our framers lived in a different world, with much different circumstances. We have to live in the present, and stop pretending like the past was right, fair, and just.

 

[michaelskis]

What are your thoughts on Pork Barrel Spending and Earmarks

What are your thoughts on Pork Barrel Spending and Earmarks?

One thing that I did like about President Obama was is promise to veto any bills that had earmarks or pork barrel spending, but that promise was broken a few days after he took office... with a republican backed bill.

I am personally against them and I have written letters to my representatives asking them to not support or author any bill that contains pork barrel spending or earmarks. How do you feel about them? If something needs funding, why can't they just approve it as part of a regular bill?

 

[Suburb Repairman]

What are your thoughts on Pork Barrel Spending and Earmarks?

One thing that I did like about President Obama was is promise to veto any bills that had earmarks or pork barrel spending, but that promise was broken a few days after he took office... with a republican backed bill.

I am personally against them and I have written letters to my representatives asking them to not support or author any bill that contains pork barrel spending or earmarks. How do you feel about them? If something needs funding, why can't they just approve it as part of a regular bill?

One man's pork is another man's "essential, important program to benefit mankind." The definition of pork is entirely subjective, with the definition focusing on whether the funding request is from a member of the opposite party or doesn't directly benefit their district (but if it is them asking for a special appropriation, it is NEVER pork). Around here, congresspeeps of both flavors send out flyers bragging about how they secured funding for this project or that project. I'll even make an argument that major military programs take on a pork flavor--see, for example, the F-22. Different aspects of the plane are made over a wide number of states and jurisdictions for precisely that reason--congresspeeps will ALWAYS act in the selfish interest of their district or state. Fragmenting the F-22 program virtually guaranteed that its funding would never be cut.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

Pork and earmarks for particular districts don't bother me if the project is worthwhile and an efficient use of the money. Of course, what is worthwhile and efficient is pretty subjective. I get more upset when I see riders for projects attached to bills that they have nothing to do with.

 

[otterpop]

Pork and earmarks for particular districts don't bother me if the project is worthwhile and an efficient use of the money. Of course, what is worthwhile and efficient is pretty subjective. I get more upset when I see riders for projects attached to bills that they have nothing to do with.

Yeah, that galls me too. It smacks of political gamesmanship. Often a good bill has riders added either to make some sort of deal, or worse, so the opposing party can kill a bill by putting something unpalatable in the bill to kill it.

As far as strict adherence to the desires of the Founding Father, let us remember that many of these men considered it perfectly okay to own other human beings, denied their spouses the right to vote and dressed like drag queens.

 

[michaelskis]

As far as strict adherence to the desires of the Founding Father, let us remember that many of these men considered it perfectly okay to own other human beings, denied their spouses the right to vote and dressed like drag queens.

Funny, but not true. Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin repeatedly wanted to abolish slavery. Washington and Jefferson did own slaves, but it was the only way they could economically compete at that time. In fact, Jefferson spoke so much against slavery in his early days, that people explained to him that he had to back off that point if he ever wanted to win any other battles. Franklin actually had a few African Americans who worked for him at the time, and he paid them the same as anyone else for the same work.


So back to pork and earmarks. I agree that sometimes they go on to do good things for a particular region or area, but isn't there some way to make that happen? I mean do we really need to attach $1.2 million for the study of yellow jelly beans in Iowa to a interstate freeway bill?

 

[otterpop]

In fact, Jefferson spoke so much against slavery in his early days,

You mean at the same time he was fathering children wth a slave that did not have the power to say "yes" or "no"? Take from a woman the ability to consent or not consent to sexual relations is coerced sex and that, not to put not too fine a line on it, is rape.

And Washington was one of the richest men in North America, due to the slaves working his wife's plantation. I am so sure he was going to give that all up.

The Constitution is a great living document, but the Founding Fathers had feet of clay. They built an America for landed men. Not for poor men, not for women and certainly not for blacks or Indians.

 

[Blide]

Pork and earmarks for particular districts don't bother me if the project is worthwhile and an efficient use of the money. Of course, what is worthwhile and efficient is pretty subjective. I get more upset when I see riders for projects attached to bills that they have nothing to do with.

These are pretty much my thoughts on the matter. I do think every earmark needs to be justified before they're added to a bill though. Like who knows, there could be something relevant to the study of yellow jelly beans but without any numbers or rationale backing it up, there's no way to say for certain whether it's a bad investment of tax payer dollars.

Things like the Bridge to Nowhere sounded reasonable when you realize it's connecting a small Alaskan town to their airport that happens to be on an island. I certainly don't know the numbers but on its face, it sounds like a reasonable idea. I'm honestly not even sure how that became the poster child of wasteful spending. Just because it is an expensive infrastructure investment in a small community doesn't necessarily mean it is wasteful spending.

 

[Gedunker]

And Washington was one of the richest men in North America, due to the slaves working his wife's plantation. I am so sure he was going to give that all up.

Washington was perceived to be among the richest and in fact was anything but. I strongly urge you read Chernow's Washington: A Life. He was not so well off as people then (and since) have thought. Indeed, the poor man was put upon by so many people (for food, lodging and entertainment, as well as loans) that it's a wonder he didn't perish in debtor's prison. He found that his slaves were, in fact, a drain on his resources rather than a profitable venture.

 

[otterpop]

Washington was perceived to be among the richest and in fact was anything but. I strongly urge you read Chernow's Washington: A Life. He was not so well off as people then (and since) have thought. Indeed, the poor man was put upon by so many people (for food, lodging and entertainment, as well as loans) that it's a wonder he didn't perish in debtor's prison. He found that his slaves were, in fact, a drain on his resources rather than a profitable venture.

http://www.georgetowner.com/articles/2012/feb/07/wealth-presidents/

"No. 1 -- George Washington

George Washington was not only “first in the hearts of his countrymen,” but he was also the richest president in our nation’s history.

How do we measure Washington’s wealth? Measuring across centuries has its challenges. One approach is to estimate the value of his property when he was alive and adjust for inflation. Another is to look at his wealth as a percentage of gross domestic product. A third is to compare his income to the national budget. Each approach leads to huge numbers.

For the first 100 years of our nation, wealth was measured mostly by land and slaves. Washington inherited ten slaves from his father at age eleven. He eventually owned more than 8,000 acres of prime farmland near what is now Washington, D.C., and more than 300 slaves. His wife, Martha, was also very wealthy, both from her dowry and inheritance from her first husband, one of the wealthiest men in Virginia. She inherited one-third of his 17,000 acres of land and 300 slaves as well as $129,650 in Colonial Virginia currency estimated by historians at Washington and Lee University to be worth $6 million in 1986.

At the time of his death, Washington’s land, slaves, house, horses and personal belongings were worth about $525,000, which has been estimated to be worth $525 million today.

In 1996, a study to calculate the 100 richest people ever in the U.S. ranked Washington 59th, the only president on the list. His net worth was estimated to be 1/777, or 0.13 percent, of GDP. By that measure, John D. Rockefeller was the wealthiest American ever. His wealth equaled 1.5 percent of GDP. Bill Gates worth about $60 billion, or about 0.4 percent of GDP, would be in the top ten.

Washington’s salary as president was 2 percent of the Federal budget in 1789, which would amount to $60 billion today. To be fair, the budget was different 225 years ago, when there was no income tax and most federal government spending was defense. Even so, 2 percent of today’s defense budget would be $2 billion per year.

For his time, Washington was incredibly wealthy, but he didn’t have air conditioning or toilets. He got strep throat riding his horse in the snow and died two days later. Today, a common antibiotic would have had him back on his horse within days."

Poor dude. My heart bleeds for his sufferings

 

[Hink]

Funny, but not true. Jefferson, ...

It is very true actually. Jefferson only formally freed two slaves. Sure he tried to write legislation about stopping it, but for his life, he lived with and condoned slavery. Even in his death he didn't free all the slaves that worked for him. He freed something like 3. They sold the last 100+ to pay off his debt.... says a lot about a man who believed so deeply in freedom.

Pretty interesting exhibit in Washington. I didn't go, but a friend did... anyone near Washington can still go through the Summer I believe.

Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: The Paradox of Liberty

The Constitution is a great living document, but the Founding Fathers had feet of clay. They built an America for landed men. Not for poor men, not for women and certainly not for blacks or Indians.

It isn't exactly living enough... but I agree with you completely.

 

[mgk920]

And had those guys who spent that hot, sticky, gooey summer of 1787 cloistered in that stuffy, sweltering and very likely *smelly* beyond all get go room not agreed to let some future generation worry about the issue of slavery, that convention would have failed and there would have been no 'United States of America' as we know it today.

:not:

Now, back to our regularly scheduled 2012 election trash-talking.

Mike

 

[btrage]

And had those guys who spent that hot, sticky, gooey summer of 1787 cloistered in that stuffy, sweltering and very likely *smelly* beyond all get go room not agreed to let some future generation worry about the issue of slavery, that convention would have failed and there would have been no 'United States of America' as we know it today.

:not:

Now, back to our regularly scheduled 2012 election trash-talking.

Mike

This isn't a knock against those guys. As your post indicates, the Constitution itself was a compromise, not an ideal. It is open to interpretation, amendment and debate. I'm sure as those guys intended.

 

[wahday]

And had those guys who spent that hot, sticky, gooey summer of 1787 cloistered in that stuffy, sweltering and very likely *smelly* beyond all get go room not agreed to let some future generation worry about the issue of slavery, that convention would have failed and there would have been no 'United States of America' as we know it today.

:not:

Now, back to our regularly scheduled 2012 election trash-talking.

Mike

To echo what Btrage said, this statement seems to bolster the argument that what the Framers intended was that WE are SUPPOSED to be interpreting/reinterpreting the constitution as a living document as we move forward and not treat it as a stagnant, complete, infallible work. Because if they made this compromise and pushed the slavery decision to a future generation, how many other issues were also passed along? And now many were just not foreseeable at all?

 

[Bear Up North]

Confused

So, a good friend shoots me an e-mail with an attachment. The opening lines of the attachment are something along the lines of "We have to get this wolf in sheep's clothing out of the White House". The actual attachment is a YouTube video of the United States Air Force in action (great video shots) during the last couple wars. The soundtrack has some country-style singer praising in song "the red, white, and blue".

I liked the video. The tune was OK. What I can't understand is the opening line....."wolf in sheep's clothing".

Seems to this (trying very hard to be impartial) Bear that our President is just as much of a military hawk as President G. W. Bush. So much so, that many liberals (the anti-war crowd included) are upset with Barack Obama's military positioning. And the latest ads here in NW Ohio (always bombed with political ads in this key swing state) position our President as the one who made the decision to take out Osama Bin Laden. Is Obama taking some credit for this about the same as Bush on the aircraft carrier with the giant banner behind him, "Mission Accomplished"?

On military positions, doesn't seem to be much of a difference between Obama and Bush. IMO.

Bear

 

[michaelskis]

On military positions, doesn't seem to be much of a difference between Obama and Bush. IMO.

Bear

I agree. Obama even said that he would invade Afghanistan and Pakistan if he is elected.

 

[Blide]

It's kind of concerning to me that some people like John McCain want our military used even more aggressively than it is already. Though I have no idea what Romney's stance is on the issue since he seems to flip-flop on it.

 

[michaelskis]

It's kind of concerning to me that some people like John McCain want our military used even more aggressively than it is already. Though I have no idea what Romney's stance is on the issue since he seems to flip-flop on it.

From what I understand, he wants to have a stronger military for defense but less offense in terms of indirect conflicts. He also likes the use of specialized services (Seals, Special Ops...) for tactical missions instead of all out ground combat. More of a domestic focus than a global perspective.

It is about the same as Obama's from what I can tell.

 

[imaplanner]

It's kind of concerning to me that some people like John McCain want our military used even more aggressively than it is already. Though I have no idea what Romney's stance is on the issue since he seems to flip-flop on it.

My understanding is that Romney's position on the military is that 1) Obama is making us less safe, and 2) He will do the pretty much the same thing as Obama.

 

[wahday]

From what I understand, he wants to have a stronger military for defense but less offense in terms of indirect conflicts. He also likes the use of specialized services (Seals, Special Ops...) for tactical missions instead of all out ground combat. More of a domestic focus than a global perspective.

It is about the same as Obama's from what I can tell.

From what I have read, Romney seems to be wanting to be pretty assertive internationally. At least in regards to the Syrian issue where he is advocating a more engaged role. Also, Obama has proposed reducing the size of the military after 2014 and it was this proposal that Romney was responding to on Memorial Day in an effort to distinguish himself from the president (he does not support reductions in spending it seems). Romney is also a supporter of American Exceptionalism (as outlined in his 2010 book) which I find troubling. But I would agree that in terms of his actual stated positions on specific issues, he does not seem all that different from Obama (who doesn’t seem all that different from Bush).

From AP:

The Democratic president has proposed reducing the size of the military following the end of the U.S. combat role in Iraq and plans to remove troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Still, Romney has been critical of Obama's plans to reduce the military, in addition to the administration's policy toward Syria's handling of the uprising against President Bashar Assad's government.
In a written statement Sunday, Romney said Obama "can no longer ignore calls from congressional leaders in both parties to take more assertive steps in Syria." Romney said the current approach has only given Syrian leaders more time to crackdown on protesters.

 

[Blide]

My understanding is that Romney's position on the military is that 1) Obama is making us less safe, and 2) He will do the pretty much the same thing as Obama.

That was kind of my understanding on his stance, hence the confusion.

It's troubling to me that he doesn't even try to remain consistent. It's one thing to pander, it's quite another to change your positions based on your audience.

 

[otterpop]

My understanding is that Romney's position on the military is that 1) Obama is making us less safe, and 2) He will do the pretty much the same thing as Obama.

Yeah and good luck selling that one, Mitten. Obama is making us less safe. Well, except for that whole killing the former hide and seek champion - Osama bin Laden. Except for that, and, well, the fall of Khaddafi and the Arab Spring. Except for all of that, yeah, I am feeling much less safe.

 

[michaelskis]

Yeah and good luck selling that one, Mitten. Obama is making us less safe. Well, except for that whole killing the former hide and seek champion - Osama bin Laden. Except for that, and, well, the fall of Khaddafi and the Arab Spring. Except for all of that, yeah, I am feeling much less safe.

The only argument that Romney will have on any of those, is some of the people who Obama has in his cabinet including Clinton, have been trying to push him in a different direction and that he has turned allies into enemies.

Thus far, Obama has "stayed the course."

 

[Hink]

Yea fair and balanced...

‘Fox and Friends’ airs 4-minute anti-Obama video that looks like a political attack ad
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/fox-friends-obama-attack-ad-video-204537376.html

I look forward to a 4 minute anti-Romney video... you know for balance.

 

[btrage]

Wait for it.....wait for it.......

 

[Planit]

Yea fair and balanced...

‘Fox and Friends’ airs 4-minute anti-Obama video that looks like a political attack ad
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/fox-friends-obama-attack-ad-video-204537376.html

I look forward to a 4 minute anti-Romney video... you know for balance.

I'm holding my breath in anticipation waiting for such.

Hey FoxNews, Why do you hate Amercia?

 

[michaelskis]

Yea fair and balanced...

‘Fox and Friends’ airs 4-minute anti-Obama video that looks like a political attack ad
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/fox-friends-obama-attack-ad-video-204537376.html

I look forward to a 4 minute anti-Romney video... you know for balance.

Yep, it does look like an attack ad. I wonder how much of it is true and how much is Fox news stretching the truth.

It would not be had to put together the a similar ad for Romney. Just take his quotes on most subjects and put them together... he is his own worst enemy.

 

[stroskey]

Would there be any merit to just having a property tax and not an income or sales tax? Land is quantifiable and not corruptible. It is easily found and identified. Income and sales can easily be manipulated to reduce taxes. I have no idea what the property tax rate might be, but I just wonder if that might be a possibility?

 

[Maister]

Would there be any merit to just having a property tax and not an income or sales tax? Land is quantifiable and not corruptible. It is easily found and identified. Income and sales can easily be manipulated to reduce taxes. I have no idea what the property tax rate might be, but I just wonder if that might be a possibility?

Food prices would go through the roof.

 

[Hink]

Would there be any merit to just having a property tax and not an income or sales tax? Land is quantifiable and not corruptible. It is easily found and identified. Income and sales can easily be manipulated to reduce taxes. I have no idea what the property tax rate might be, but I just wonder if that might be a possibility?

The west would have a large amount of squatters. Ted Turner would be the highest taxed person in the US... by far.

Obviously the cost would be transferred to the rent of the property, but it doesn't seem like there are enough ways to actually get income for the government without having a 30% rate or something unreasonably high.

The job of appraiser just got that much more political....

Is this just for states, or are you talking about federal level?

 

[ofos]

The job of appraiser just got that much more political....

Appraising what? Just land value? Improvements? What appraisal basis? Cost? Income? Market? How about depreciation? Appeals? IMHO, property tax is much more unmanageable and subject to dispute/deception than sales or income taxes. It's bad enough at the local level without trying to manage it at the state or national levels.

 

[stroskey]

Why couldn't each property be taxed the same, regardless of use? If people have to pay X% more to have a half acre they may decide they only need 1/8th. Wouldn't it cut down sprawl if each parcel was taxed at the same rate based on land and not structure value?

 

[ofos]

Why couldn't each property be taxed the same, regardless of use? If people have to pay X% more to have a half acre they may decide they only need 1/8th. Wouldn't it cut down sprawl if each parcel was taxed at the same rate based on land and not structure value?

Even if you're only talking about single family residential zoned land, the value of that land is dependent on location, access, suitability for building, availability of utilities, etc. Then there are all the imposed restrictions such as setbacks, coverage ratios, easements, covenants, etc. Administrative nightmare.

 

[michaelskis]

Even if you're only talking about single family residential zoned land, the value of that land is dependent on location, access, suitability for building, availability of utilities, etc. Then there are all the imposed restrictions such as setbacks, coverage ratios, easements, covenants, etc. Administrative nightmare.

Let's just repeal the 16th Amendment.

 

[otterpop]

Montana has no sales tax. Which I like, simply because it is great to know the price of an item before you get to the register. Because we have no sales tax (with the exception of resort taxes in a few communities), we make up the revenue by paying higher property taxes. Of course a large percentage of the land in the states is state or federal land, and therefore not taxed. We do have an income tax as well, which is probably about the same as other states having state income tax.

One of the advantages of property taxes is at least you get a bill each eyar that tells you where the money is going and how much goes to each entity. I know how much I pay to fund the schools, police, sherriff, etc.

I personally like how I am taxed: property and income taxes. Not that I have any say in the matter. I don't like sales taxes because I don't like having to do advanced math in the checkout line.

 

[imaplanner]

Let's just repeal the 16th Amendment.

Ya buddy!

In all honesty the people who want no income taxes whatsoever yet still think we can somehow be a global power are so far deluded its not even worth discussing. I will say that I would prefer to have an amendment that requires the govt to apportion the taxes to each state as they are paid. It's terribly irritating to live in a state like CA where we keep subsidizing the red states who pretend like we are failing on our own. We are failing because the government takes so much of our tax money and gives it to the red states.

 

[stroskey]

Ya buddy!

In all honesty the people who want no income taxes whatsoever yet still think we can somehow be a global power are so far deluded its not even worth discussing. I will say that I would prefer to have an amendment that requires the govt to apportion the taxes to each state as they are paid. It's terribly irritating to live in a state like CA where we keep subsidizing the red states who pretend like we are failing on our own. We are failing because the government takes so much of our tax money and gives it to the red states.

Not too be too political right now but look at the biggest booming states - all pretty much red.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I think there should be a state just for Rep and a state just for Dem. I wonder how each state would fair after say, 5 or 10 years.

 

[Blide]

Some of those policies won't show an effect in 5-10 years. Like underfunding education is not a winning long term strategy but states will continue to do it as long as lower taxes attract business.

 

[imaplanner]

Not too be too political right now but look at the biggest booming states - all pretty much red.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I think there should be a state just for Rep and a state just for Dem. I wonder how each state would fair after say, 5 or 10 years.

I'm just talking about taxes. It's irritating that for every dollar we pay for taxes we only get 80 cents back whereas a state like North Dakota gets 2 dollars for every dollar they pay. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

I'm not intending to be too political on this topic, just that I support the idea of requiring reapprotionment of spending to be based on taxes paid.

And actually, many of the "booming" states are these same states that are getting more in taxes than they pay. North and South Dakota, Alaska. I don't know if there is any correlation. Hawaii is also one of the better economies right now and they aren't really a red state.

The closest we have really to looking at straight red and blue states might be Texas and California? Both are not doing so hot at the moment though it would be hard to argue Texas isn't doing better.

 

[hilldweller]

It's terribly irritating to live in a state like CA where we keep subsidizing the red states who pretend like we are failing on our own. We are failing because the government takes so much of our tax money and gives it to the red states.

No, you guys are failing because your state government is too big and spends too much damn money.

 

[michaelskis]

The feds would still get money, but instead of the money from us, to the feds, then to the states, the money would go from us, to the states, then to the federal government. That is how it was for over 130 years. We have only had a federal income tax for 100 years, and it was declared unconstitutional multiple times by the US supreme court before they got approval to do it in 1913.

Oh, and we need to replace the federal reserve too.

 

[imaplanner]

No, you guys are failing because your state government is too big and spends too much damn money.

well yes that is true. But at the same time, if we actually got closer to 95 cents back out of every dollar we pay in federal taxes we would have a surplus.

The feds would still get money, but instead of the money from us, to the feds, then to the states, the money would go from us, to the states, then to the federal government. .

The problem would be without the 16th amendment nothing would stop certain states from opting to not pay anything or severly underfunding their federal responsibilities. In theory I'm all for the money going to the states first but i don't see how it would work when nothing would prevent some states from opting out of their responsibilities. In a way, this is already happening with the explicit approval of the federal government that takes money from states like New Jersey and California and gives it to states like Alaska

 

[otterpop]

I'm just talking about taxes. It's irritating that for every dollar we pay for taxes we only get 80 cents back whereas a state like North Dakota gets 2 dollars for every dollar they pay. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html .

But come on, those people have to live in North Dakota. They should at least get some perks :lmao:

 

[michaelskis]

The problem would be without the 16th amendment nothing would stop certain states from opting to not pay anything or severly underfunding their federal responsibilities. In theory I'm all for the money going to the states first but i don't see how it would work when nothing would prevent some states from opting out of their responsibilities. In a way, this is already happening with the explicit approval of the federal government that takes money from states like New Jersey and California and gives it to states like Alaska

What keeps the federal government from giving money to a particular state?

Without the 16th amendment, there are a lot of things that the federal government would pass on to each individual state or completely eliminate.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Some of those policies won't show an effect in 5-10 years. Like underfunding education is not a winning long term strategy but states will continue to do it as long as lower taxes attract business.

That is a huge worry for me here in Texas--they slaughtered the public schools here during the last legislative session. And this was after they 'reformed' school district tax authority that limited their local authority & perogative to propose higher local taxes. Texas doesn't cotton to the Federal folks telling them what to do, but when it comes to local control they're a freaking joke and act the same as what they accuse the Feds of doing to them. Their actions over the last four years have resulted in massive layoffs in school districts throughout the state, classroom size in elementary schools cresting 30 students (and rising), special education a mess with their resources being cut, school libraries struggling... we won't know how bad it will affect us long-term, but we were already having educational competitiveness issues before this happened. Oh, and we have a dipshit governor that can't string together a meaningful sentence without a special interest whispering in his ear what to say, and believes we can create a meaningful, legitimate bachelors degree in anything for under $10k without heavy subsidation. And education is but one topic that Texas, under ultra-conservative Republican control, has fucked-up catastrophically. The "Texas Miracle" is a rouge of kick-the-can, with the can now rapidly approaching a cliff here.

I worry about planning for my future kids' educations in this state.

Eliminating the 16th amendment is a good theory just as libertarianism is good in theory... provided that you actually believe that individuals will work toward collective goods at the state level rather than in their own selfish interests. That extends to states, as they would each act in their own self-interest rather than working collectively together on national issues. In the global environment that means each state would be effectively competing internationally, rather than as a true united states.

The 16th amendment is not the problem. The problem is that we don't have elections anymore--we have auctions. We have no statesmen (stateswomen), only short-sighted partisans that only see as far as their next fundraiser. That is why our tax policy is not working. That is why all three branches of our government show signs of disfunction. That is why voter apathy is so high. It starts with the financial whoring of our elected officials. That is what is holding the U.S. back more than anything.

 

[Hink]

The 16th amendment is not the problem. The problem is that we don't have elections anymore--we have auctions. We have no statesmen (stateswomen), only short-sighted partisans that only see as far as their next fundraiser. That is why our tax policy is not working. That is why all three branches of our government show signs of disfunction. That is why voter apathy is so high. It starts with the financial whoring of our elected officials. That is what is holding the U.S. back more than anything.

*Golf Clap*.....

 

[mgk920]

Attempt to recall Michigan's Governor ends

An attempt by some to force a special election to recall Michigan Governor Rick Snyder was called off on Thursday after the failure of such an attempt against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on Tuesday.

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/157766305.html

Fascinating.

Mike

 

[michaelskis]

Eliminating the 16th amendment is a good theory just as libertarianism is good in theory... provided that you actually believe that individuals will work toward collective goods at the state level rather than in their own selfish interests. That extends to states, as they would each act in their own self-interest rather than working collectively together on national issues. In the global environment that means each state would be effectively competing internationally, rather than as a true united states.

It is more than theory. Right now we have congress and the senate that work only to get reelected and a bureaucratic system that is grossly over-funded. I am all for military and security, but we have so many different security and military divisions that don't talk or communicate, it is as if they are sabotaging our future success as a nation. Furthermore, we have all of this pork spending at the federal level for location specific projects. Without the 16th amendment, that funding will need to be allocated by the state. Will our state taxes go up, likely but I am a firm believer that I will spend my money more wisely on things that matter to me, than if I send my money to some bureaucratic in DC. Think of it like CDBG funding, the pool of money goes to the City and while it does have limitations, the City spends it as they see fit. In this case, the money never leaves the state.

It is like a "being late money jar". Say you work for a place that charges you 5 dollars every time your late. At the end of the month the office has a get together and a prize awarded via random drawing. One month you are in charge of buying the drawing prize with the "late money". Two things happen. first, it is not your money, second, the chances of you ending up with the prize are unlikely. So you don't go buy something useful, meaningfulness, or of value. Instead you buy a stuffed purple gorilla. It is something that you would never spend your money on for you to use yourself. But when it is other peoples money and you are going going to be the recipient, then things change. The further removed you are from the money and the prize, the less likely you are to buy something of quality and value.

Washington DC buys stuffed purple gorillas all the time, regardless if there is an R or a D behind their name. Will my state be perfect, no, but they understand the needs in our communities far better than DC does.

The problem is that we don't have elections anymore--we have auctions. We have no statesmen (stateswomen), only short-sighted partisans that only see as far as their next fundraiser.

I can not agree with you more. Most of the people (along with both candidates for President) are so far from being statesmen, or stateswomen, that it is truly disheartening.